WATERVILLE -- Mayor Paul R. LePage on Tuesday night expressed outrage that city councilors in his absence two weeks ago voted to approve a three-year settlement with Irving Oil Co. without his knowledge. LePage directed his anger at City Administrator Michael J. Roy, whom he said placed the Irving item on the agenda for consideration at the April 18 council meeting without his or Council Chairman Dana W. Sennett's knowledge. "The city administrator, without the mayor, made a policy decision and I think it's bad -- it's terrible," LePage said.

LePage made the comments after Tuesday's council meeting, at which LePage, in a surprise move, asked that councilors waive cloture and bring up an item that was not on the agenda.

The item turned out to be a request to reconsider a decision councilors made April 18 -- while LePage, Sennett and Councilor Donald N. Dufour, D-Ward 5, were on vacation -- to approve a three-year contract with Irving designed to give the city some of the oil owed it by the dealer, P.P.C.O.M.

P.P.C.O.M. is an Oakland oil dealer now in bankruptcy that owes more than $17 million to creditors who claim the company did not make good on payments or delivery of fuel, including heating oil, gasoline and diesel. Irving, P.P.C.O.M.'s supplier, is the largest creditor. Irving is proposing to split 160,000 gallons of heating oil between 12 creditors who hired an attorney to represent them. As part of the deal, the creditors are obliged to buy all their heating oil from Irving during the next three years.

LePage said Tuesday that he opposes the deal.

"It's a bad deal -- it's an enormously bad deal because you're locked into a three-year contract. We have to buy our oil from Irving for three years. This was put on the (April 18) agenda without my knowledge."

LePage, Sennett and Roy regularly meet the Wednesday before every council meeting to set the agenda for each meeting. Both LePage and Sennett said they did so before they went on vacation and decided not to place the Irving item on the agenda, and that Roy placed it on the agenda after they left for vacation.

LePage said the decision to place it on the agenda is a policy matter, not an administrative one, and Roy's doing so was inappropriate.

"If you read the charter right now, the city administrator deals with day-to-day operations; he is not is charge of putting things that are policy items on the agenda without the council chairman or the mayor's knowledge. It was put on after we left. Dana and I talked about it and we decided it wasn't going to go on."

Roy, who disputed the claim that he did anything inappropriate, sent a memo to councilors before the April 18 council vote, saying the proposed settlement offered the best hope of getting some oil at no additional cost. The creditors already had spent $30,000 in legal fees on the issue, he wrote.

"Even though we will be committed to buying from Irving for three years, the price of oil and transportation costs that they have offered should remain very competitive," the memo states.

He told councilors at the April 18 meeting that the proposed settlement was the best the city could get at the time.

Roy after Tuesday's meeting said support for the 12 organizations is important to the settlement.

"Out of 12 organizations, if one or two pull out, the whole deal could collapse for everyone else," he said.

The rift between LePage and Roy comes as a surprise in a relationship that has been apparently mutually supportive.

LePage has been very vocal in his praise of Roy, whom he brought to the city nearly 1 1/2 years ago from Oakland, where he was town manager.

After the discussion after the council meeting, LePage suggested he and Roy go to the mayor's office downstairs to talk, which they did.

ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 1/10Federal BudgetMr. S. Graham: Yesterday Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative governmentannounced a $224-billion budget for our country. In November 2005, our Premier, in an attempt totry to restart his government’s Prosperity Plan, announced a new strategy, Accelerating GreaterOpportunity. This included four key component areas: Investing in People, Building StrategicInfrastructure, Creating a Competitive Fiscal and Business Environment, and finally, EmbracingInnovation. These are four critical areas that we agree need to be addressed.My question is for the Premier this morning. This document also made a request of $1.5 billion ofthe $224 billion that was announced yesterday in special funding for the province of NewBrunswick. It was an 80-20 cost-shared agreement, where the province would contribute 20% of thefunding and the federal government would contribute 80%. The first portion of the fundingrequested was to increase immigration to New Brunswick. A $25-million project, $5 million to beapplied by the province and $20 million by the federal government . . .Mr. Speaker: Question, please.Mr. S. Graham: My question to the Premier this morning is this: On this key component area, wasthe $20 million included in the federal budget yesterday?Hon. Mr. Lord: I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has taken the time to review thedocument called Accelerating Greater Opportunity. I also hope he has taken the time to read theProsperity Plan, and I hope he takes the time to examine the Five in Five Initiative and all the policydocuments that support the direction of the government of New Brunswick. The fact is that we havelaid a very strong policy foundation to move the province forward, and we are succeeding. Thereis good news in New Brunswick. We are succeeding with more jobs than ever before, with moreinvestments in health care and education, and with a new partnership with the federal government.Mr. S. Graham: The people watching the debate in this Chamber today would expect the Premierto answer the question. He chose not to, which is very unfortunate. My question, specifically, to thePremier was this. The increased immigration strategy that your government submitted to the federalgovernment made a request for $20 million. It was a $25-million project. Was the $20-millioncommitment included in yesterday’s federal budget?Hon. Mr. Lord: This is not the place to go through the estimates of the federal budget. This isactually the place to go through the estimates of the provincial budget. We want to get through theestimates of the provincial budget, but it seems that the opposition does not. However, that is okay.I know that we will eventually get around to it and will be able to describe all the good investmentsthat are made by the provincial government.ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 2/10The fact is that we did send to the previous Liberal federal government a proposal of partnership,because that government kept saying that it wanted to invest in New Brunswick when, in fact, it wasnot investing in our province. I decided to submit a formal proposal. That government was defeated.There is a new government in Ottawa. We have a very good relationship. We have been able to getmoney for roads. We have been able to get money for harbour cleanup. We have been able to getmoney for a new stadium, and we will continue to get money and work to get money for moreinvestments, including for immigration.013 10:55Mr. S. Graham: I cannot believe the words coming out of our Premier’s mouth this morning. Whathe is saying is that he is going to change his demands, based on the government in power.My question, since the Premier has not answered the first two, is this: The second issue oftransitioning new postsecondary graduates in the workplace is a $35-million project that hisgovernment has committed to. He is saying he is prepared to commit $7 million. Has the federalgovernment committed the $28 million in this budget that the Premier requested?(Interjections).Hon. Mr. Lord: I know that the opposition members find it funny. I am sorry, I am just human.The fact is that we had made some proposals to the previous federal government. We continue towork with the new federal government to get investments. All these investments were not meant tobe for just one year. They were designed for a six-year proposal. This is a long-term plan. The factis that we do have a partner. The other federal government did not even respond to AcceleratingGreater Opportunity. It simply said no, while the new federal government has clearly indicated thatit is willing to work with us. Frankly, if we can resolve the issue of the fiscal imbalance, we will beable to do some of these things on our own.That is why I am pleased that in yesterday’s federal budget, the federal government signalled itsintention to work with the provinces to fix the fiscal imbalance. I intend to be there at the table,defending the interests of New Brunswick, as I have been doing for the last seven years, to makesure that this is an important issue.Mr. S. Graham: The Premier must be admitting today then that . . . I am concerned today, becausethe Premier is saying that the proposal that was on the table in November 2005 is not on the tablenow, in the spring of 2006, simply because the government has changed power. You would thinkthat the Premier would be committed to the plan that he tabled in this House last November.The people of New Brunswick have not heard an answer to the two specific questions on the twofirst areas I asked about. On the skills training and retraining program, the Premier had submittedORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 3/10a proposal to government whereby transitioning adult learners to the new economy throughenhanced workplace skills and literacy training was a priority. This was a $40-million program. Youwere prepared to invest $5 million, but you were requesting $35 million from the federalgovernment. Was that included in yesterday’s federal budget?Hon. Mr. Lord: I know that the Leader of the Opposition is impatient, and he is impatient to getthe details of the federal budget. I did not table the federal budget. The federal budget was not tabledin this House. What was tabled in this House is an excellent budget. It was tabled about five weeksago. It is a great budget for New Brunswick, that enables us to fund the measures that we think areessential for the people of New Brunswick, for training, for education, for health care, for tax relieffor businesses, with a balanced budget.The Leader of the Opposition surely would know that all the single details of the budget are nothighlighted in the overall document of a federal government budget. There are envelopes that thefederal government can use to partner with provinces to fund certain projects, and that is what wewant. I did not expect to read yesterday in the federal budget: Accelerating Greater Opportunity—Xmillion dollars for New Brunswick. That is not how we expect this to be funded. We expect this tobe funded through partnership agreements with the federal government, as we did for the highways.We did get $400-million, two-way funding for the highways of New Brunswick.Mr. S. Graham: Again, the Premier has not answered the questions he has been asked this morning.Clearly, the veil of secrecy was lifted off the federal budget yesterday. The question that the Premierhas to answer is this: What new agreement was given to New Brunswick? He submitted a proposalrequesting $1.5 billion from the federal government. Today, he is flip-flopping, saying that thegovernment has changed power, so we are not going to honour the commitment that we proposedin November 2005.014 11:00It is evident. In the Building Strategic Infrastructure document, the Premier proposed, for thenational highway system—Routes 1, 7, 8, 11, and 17—a $3-million program, a $1-millioncommitment from the provincial government, and a $200-million request from the federalgovernment. The Premier was requesting an 80-20 split. In the agreement that he just announced,he changed his position and signed a 50-50 deal, which, traditionally, every political party in NewBrunswick did to build better roads.My question to the Premier pertains to the municipal and green infrastructure. You submitted a $90-million request. You were prepared to commit $30 million in provincial taxpayers’ money in thisinvestment, and you requested $60 million from the federal government. Was that announced inyesterday’s federal budget?ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 4/10Hon. Mr. Lord: The words coming out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition are reallysurprising today. He called the tabling of the budget a lifting of the veil of secrecy. What happenedyesterday was that the federal government tabled its budget; it was not lifting a veil of secrecy, itjust tabled the budget. With the Liberals, everything is a conspiracy. Everything is about somedevious plan. Perhaps that is how they operate, but that is not how we operate.The fact is, we suggested, in Accelerating Greater Opportunity, that we would invest in Routes 17,11, 8, 1, and 7. We proposed that we would like to get at least $200 million from the federalgovernment, and we were going to put in at least $100 million. Instead, we committed to putting inat least $200 million from the provincial government, because there are some needs on Routes 1,7, 8, 11, and 17.When the Leader of the Opposition says that every party was able to get 50-50, that is not true,because the amount of money that was received by the previous Liberal government for theMoncton-to-Fredericton highway was zero. It was not 50%; they did not even get 50¢, let alone50%. They got $0.Mr. S. Graham: The former government of Frank McKenna was instrumental in signing the LabourMarket Development Agreement. In fact, your government signed the early learning and childhooddevelopment agreement with the government of Jean Chrétien. The question we are asking today,though, is this: What new agreement has been signed with the federal government in Ottawa thatwill give New Brunswickers the opportunity to excel under this proposal that the government madein November of 2005? I can go down the entire list, but the charade has to end. Unfortunately, today,the Premier has not answered one specific request for information on where a request has beenfinalized in the budget. He has received zero out of this document; a total of $0 has been achieved,and that is unfortunate for the taxpayers of New Brunswick.The Premier is saying that the strategy has changed and the plan has changed because there is a newgovernment in Ottawa. That is not what the people of New Brunswick expect from our Premier. Mr.Premier, my question to you is very simple. The estimates process, when the document is tabled inthe House, does contain specific items of where money will be invested. Yes, the budget documenthas to be kept secret until it is released; that is the veil of secrecy. Today, it is public document. Youhad supper with Prime Minister Harper last week, Mr. Premier. Tell us: Of the $1.5-billion requestthat you submitted in November, how much did you receive in yesterday’s budget?Hon. Mr. Lord: I am very pleased that we have a good new partnership with the federalgovernment. I will state for the record, as I have before, that I had a good working relationship withformer Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. The fact is, the previous federal Liberal government was intenton trying to interfere with the priorities of New Brunswick, rather than supporting the priorities ofNew Brunswick. The new federal government wants to support the priorities of New Brunswick.The new federal government has been in place for about 100 days. Think about it. In 100 days, weORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 5/10were able to get a $400-million commitment on highways—$200 million from the feds, $200million from the province. That $200 million is not bad.We have also been able to get a commitment from the federal government that deals with the biggestissue of the finances of this province and of this country—namely, how to address the fiscalimbalance. I believe that when the negotiations on the fiscal imbalance take place over the next year,it will be essential for New Brunswick to be there at the table, and I will be there.015 11:05Mr. Murphy: Based upon yesterday’s budget, when the negotiations begin on the fiscal imbalance,we are going to get screwed again. Yesterday, we got nothing for New Brunswick. The Premier hastalked about his plan. That Prosperity Plan is the same one that delivered 0.2 GDP growth last year,the second lowest job creation growth in Canada, and has missed three of its five goals so far.My question is to the Minister of Finance. Two weeks ago, the Globe and Mail reported that thefederal government was going to take $3.3 billion from the surplus of last year and put it into fivedifferent trusts. None of this was every reported. Based upon the fact that we have 3% of theCanadian population, this could mean $90 million to $100 million in funds to the province of NewBrunswick. Can the Minister of Finance tell us about these five trusts, and indicate whether we haveaccess to that? Does it mean $90 million to $100 million, which, apparently, it has never announced?Hon. Mr. Lord: I want to respond to the comments made by the member for Moncton North. Firstof all, his language is not very parliamentary, but we are accustomed to that.The fact is that the only way New Brunswick will be shortchanged at those negotiations is if everNew Brunswick is represented by more Liberals, because that is when New Brunswick has beenshortchanged by the federal government or by the province of New Brunswick. It is when Liberalsare in charge. The last time the Liberals were in office in this province, they agreed with otherprovinces to move to a per capita funding formula that was to the advantage of Alberta, Ontario, andBritish Columbia—not New Brunswick. The quid pro quo that should have been obtained at the timeby the Liberal Premier of the day was better equalization, and that was not obtained. That took placein the 1990s. We know what happens when the Liberals are there. They do not stand up for NewBrunswick. I have been working on the file of fiscal imbalance for seven years, and I intend to bethere to make sure that New Brunswick gets what we need to deliver the services.Mr. Murphy: The Premier is correct. The language was not parliamentary, and I apologize to theHouse for that. The fact is that we will get nothing, zip, nada, hammered by this federal government.That was the point.The question to the Minister of Finance is this: On December 1, on the CBC, he indicated that if thePrime Minister reduced the GST by 1%, it would mean that, in New Brunswick, we will lose $90ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 6/10million in revenue. I would like the Minister of Finance to explain what he meant on December 1,2005 when he said that to the CBC.L’hon. M. Volpé : Une fois de plus, je tenterai d’éclaircir la situation pour le député de Moncton-Nord. Il est confus. La question posée cherchait à savoir quel serait l’impact sur le Nouveau-Brunswick d’une baisse de 1 % sur la TPS. J’avais dit que, pour chaque diminution de 1 %, notrepart de 8 % sur le total de 15 % vaut à peut près 98 millions. On ne perd rien parce que c’est la partiefédérale qui est réduite de 1 %. J’espère que le député de Moncton-Nord comprendra que c’est lapartie fédérale qui sera réduite.Donc, les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick pourront garder tout près de 100 millions dans toutes lesrégions de la province. Les personnes à faible revenu et les personnes mieux nanties qui achèterontdes produits et des services pourront garder tout près de 100 millions. Je ne sais pas pourquoi ledéputé de Moncton-Nord est contre cela. Il est habitué à un gouvernement libéral qui taxe les genset garde leur argent. D’une façon plutôt obscure, ce genre de gouvernement redistribue l’argent àses amis.Mr. Murphy: On December 1, the Minister of Finance said: So, if they decide to reduce it, therewill be an impact. He spoke of $90 million. Whether it is indirect or through federal transferpayments, we do not know. That is why I asked for an explanation, because he said that. Yesterday,the federal budget delivered zero for the seniors, and zero for those on fixed income. It, in fact,raised income tax for the working poor from 15% to 15.5%, from the lowest tax bracket. For childcare, it is giving out $25 a week, when it takes $5 000 to $8 000 per year for child care in a licensedinstitution. The 1% GST reduction helps those with more money to spend, and our working poor andpoor do not have a lot to spend.016 11:10I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us specifically what came from this federal budget tohelp our poor and our working poor?L’hon. M. Volpé : Le concept d’une gestion prudente et efficace des finances de la province ou duCanada n’est pas compris par les Libéraux. De ce côté-là de la Chambre, on nous dit que, si lefédéral réduit ses recettes de tout près de 100 millions venant du Nouveau-Brunswick, c’est commesi on disait qu’on réduira les services. Absolument pas. Au Nouveau-Brunswick, depuis 1999, ona des exemples où nous avons réduit la dette de la province, nous avons réduit les impôts des genset nous avons équilibré nos budgets. C’est possible. Le fédéral a la même ligne de pensée que legouvernement provincial. Il nous dit que le gouvernement peut gérer ses finances d’une façonefficace pour aller chercher cet argent à l’interne sans réduire les services et en augmentant lesbénéfices pour tous les gens partout au Canada.ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 7/10Je me demande encore pourquoi le député de Moncton-Nord est contre le fait que les gens duNouveau-Brunswick pourront conserver tout près de 100 millions qu’on envoyait avant à ungouvernement libéral qui prenait cet argent et le donnait à ses amis. Je ne peux comprendre cela.Lorsqu’il nous dit qu’il n’y a rien dans le budget pour les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick, c’esttotalement faux. Les transferts pour les garderies, au lieu d’être de quelque 20 millions par année,sont de 50 millions par année pour les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick.Mr. Speaker: Time.Conflict of InterestMr. Arseneault: Today, my question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the Deputy Premierstated that Grama’s Bake Shop was placed in a blind trust. Apparently, the Deputy Premier’sdefinition of blind trust is that he gets to remain as a director of the corporation and still uses thecompany credit card. Pursuant to the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, the Deputy Premier isrequired to receive written approval from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to have a companyin blind trust while serving as a member of the Executive Council. The Deputy Premier also statedto the media that he would provide them with a letter from the Conflict of Interest Commissionerthis morning with his written approval on the blind trust. Does the Deputy Premier have this letter,and is he willing to share it with the Legislature?Hon. D. Graham: I certainly do have the letter in hand, and I certainly am ready to table it at thismoment.Mr. Arseneault: It is a question of the integrity of the government and the lack thereof of thisgovernment on this issue. The Members’ Conflict of Interest Act clearly states that no member ofthe Executive Council may “engage in the management of a business carried on by a corporation”and that no member should be making decisions that result in a personal benefit. In March 2003, theDeputy Premier spent 10 days attending a 3-day conference in Las Vegas on behalf of thegovernment. Instead of paying for his airline tickets and conference registration fees with hisministerial credit card, the Deputy Premier chose to utilize the credit card of Grama’s Bake Shop,the company held in blind trust. If the Deputy Premier has his company in blind trust and, as the Actstates, he cannot be involved in any of its operation, why is the Deputy Premier carrying the creditcard of Grama’s Bake Shop in his pocket and using it for ministerial expenses?Hon. D. Graham: I certainly did pay for my trip to Las Vegas on the card of Grama’s Bake Shop,and I will remind the member to get the facts. It was very clear: Grama’s Bake Shop, Dale Graham.I certainly paid my company back. Once again, we see the tactics of the provincial Liberals. Iencouraged and asked the member . . . He made the statement yesterday: Can the Deputy Premiertell us why he broke the law? I encourage him to go outside and ask me that question.ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 8/10Mr. Arseneault: I would encourage the Deputy Premier to understand what a blind trust means. Hecannot be involved in any shape or form with the company in question. He just admitted a while agothat he uses the company credit card. The Deputy Premier is not respecting the letter or the spirit ofthe conflict of interest legislation. Time and again, the Deputy Premier claimed reimbursement forministerial expenses on his company’s credit card when it is not permitted by law to be involved inits operation.My final question to the Deputy Premier today is this. Since he has a ministerial credit card at hisdisposal, why is he constantly paying for ministerial expenses with the credit card of Grama’s BakeShop? Is it because he is accumulating air miles? How many air miles has this minister accumulatedon the backs of taxpayers of New Brunswick?017 11:15Hon. D. Graham: I certainly had a conversation with Judge Ryan yesterday. I explained everythingthat was brought up in yesterday’s question period. He has faxed me a letter today. I am going tocall, after question period. I will make the call and ask the member of the opposition to get a fullbriefing on what “blind trust” means. It is on paper, and I can tell you that I followed everycommitment that is in that blind trust agreement.Mr. V. Boudreau: My questions . . .Mr. Speaker: Order. Member for Tantramar, order. Minister of Transportation, order. There is noneed for this. Member for Tantramar, first warning.Provincial Health PlanMr. V. Boudreau: My questions this morning are for the Minister of Health. I would like to talkabout the provincial health plan, which was tabled in June of 2004. There is a section in the healthplan which talks about health research. I would like to quote one section:Health research is a key ingredient in making the best use of our health resources, to train andattract health professionals and to promote a culture of research and innovation. Researchers canprovide valuable knowledge that policy makers and planners can use to develop more efficient,effective health services. “Made-in-New-Brunswick research” will help us find local solutions tothe challenges facing our health services system.Since 2003, there has been a group, including universities, regional health authorities, the RHAassociation, and other medical stakeholders, which has established the New Brunswick Rural HealthResearch Network, in the hope that it may one day become a national rural health research institute,based here in New Brunswick. What funding has the Department of Health allocated to thisworthwhile initiative in the current fiscal year?ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 9/10Hon. Mr. Green: I will get back to the member opposite with a precise answer to his question onthat particular area of research in the province. I can say that just within the last several days, I havesigned several letters to researchers here in the province who are working with our universities inthe area of medical research. A lot of exciting work is being done here in New Brunswick, in thearea of health research. That is being supported very strongly by the province. I will be pleased toprovide those details to the member opposite, as well.Mr. V. Boudreau: Based on our research, the answer is zero. It was zero last year, and it was zerothe previous year. There is also another quote in the provincial health plan that reads:Research also has the potential to make an increased contribution to the New Brunswick economy.Every year, national funding agencies invest more than a billion dollars in health research acrossthe country. However, very little of this funding comes to New Brunswick, due in part to the fact thatNew Brunswick is the only province without a provincial health research organization.As part of the provincial health plan, the government did commit to a $3-million fund for healthresearch. Almost two years have gone by since announcing this fund, and, so far, to our knowledge,absolutely nothing has been spent. Can the minister confirm how much of this fund has been spentto date, and on what specific projects?Hon. Mr. Green: It was less than 90 seconds ago that I stated on the floor of the House that we havebeen investing in medical health research in this province. I indicated that just within the last severaldays, we have approved several different projects for funding. Again, I will be pleased to providethat information to the member opposite. One thing I know for certain is that since 1999, when thisgovernment took office, the growth in innovation and research and development in this province,in all sectors, has far outstripped anything that happened before 1999, and that is something in whichwe take a great deal of pride.Mr. V. Boudreau: Obviously, if the minister had something concrete to tell us, he would haveannounced it during his answers. The $3 million has been on the table for two years now. Asrecently as a couple of months ago, when we were questioning the various RHAs, when we werequestioning the department on the public accounts, not one nickel of that $3 million had been spentto date.018 11:20The provincial health plan also states that:The Department of Health and Wellness will partner with New Brunswick Innovation Foundation(NBIF) and other stakeholders to build health research capacity, foster innovation in the healthsystem, promote evidence-based decision-making and increase New Brunswick’s competitiveposition in the national health research funding arena.ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 10/10We have the New Brunswick Rural Health Research Network, which is trying to get some funding,some seed money, from this government. I would make a suggestion to the government that it take10% of this $3-million fund and give it to this network to help it become a research institute and goget more money from the federal government and from other stakeholders. Is the minister open tothat suggestion?Hon. Mr. Green: Once again, I have already made it clear. We are investing in health research. Ihave also stated that I would be happy to provide the member opposite with details of theinvestments we are making. When it comes to improving the health of New Brunswickers in ruralareas, we are making significant progress. There are 214 more doctors in this province,provincewide, than when we took office in 1999—not 214 as a gross number, but as a net increase.The health of New Brunswickers, regardless of where they live, is very important to us, and we aremaking the investments to make that happen.

I SAID, "O LORD, HAVE MERCY ON ME; HEAL ME, FOR I HAVE SINNED AGAINST YOU." ( PSALM 41:4 *NIV )

Dear Charles, When we fall victim to sin, we may repent of our sins and ask God for forgiveness. For it is written; "COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER," SAYS THE LORD. "THOUGH YOUR SINS ARE LIKE SCARLET, THEY SHALL BE AS WHITE AS SNOW; THOUGH THEY ARE RED AS CRIMSON, THEY SHALL BE LIKE WOOL." ( ISAIAH 1:18 )

This is because; IF WE CONFESS OUR SINS, HE IS FAITHFUL AND JUST AND WILL FORGIVE US OUR SINS AND PURIFY US FROM ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. ( 1 JOHN 1:9 ) FOR YOU, LORD ARE GOOD, AND READY TO FORGIVE, AND ABUNDANT IN MERCY TO ALL WHO CALL ON YOU. ( PSALM 86:5 )

Further, God has even promised; I WILL FORGIVE THEIR WICKEDNESS AND WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE. ( HEBREWS 8:12 ) So never feel that you have done something that God will not forgive.

Liberal Leader Shawn Graham asked Bernard Richard to look into the release of a letter that contained personal information about a New Brunswick resident.

The release of the letter led to the resignation last week of Lord's press secretary, Chisholm Pothier.

The Liberals want to know if Lord approved the release of the letter.

Richard, a former Liberal MLA, also wants to know who authorized the release of the letter, and is concerned Pothier's resignation could send a chill through the public service.

"I've decided that I will investigate the complaint," said Richard. "If civil servants feel that this is the new standard now, that if they provide information that may be borderline, they might be called upon to resign or be fired as a result."

Liberals say both Lord and Robichaud violated the Protection of Private Information Act by keeping a letter containing a citizen's personal and private information and using it for political gain.

The individual's personal information was contained in a January 2005 letter Lord referred to in the legislature last week.

The letter was addressed to Transportation Minister Paul Robichaud and written by Liberal MLA Carmel Robichaud, on behalf of a constituent who had been convicted of drunk driving, but wanted a permit to drive to and from work.

Lord referred to the letter after the Liberal Opposition raised questions about Tory supporters trying to influence the government on a Shediac development project.

Lord offered to table the letter in the house, suggesting Liberal MLAs were using their influence to help drunk drivers get back behind the wheel.

Outside of the chambers, Pothier handed copies of the letter to reporters without blacking the individual's name out. He apologized, saying he regretted that decision and was personally responsible for making the letter public. He then resigned.

Lord says Pothier is the only person in violation of the act, and insists neither he or Robichaud broke the rules.

"He did receive a complaint so the ombudsman feels compelled, I presume, to examine the complaint and he will. There's nothing wrong with that," Lord said. "But I can tell you that I did not break the act and neither did Minister Robichaud."

Richard estimates his investigation will take approximately two months to complete.

This afternoon I witnessed a good Samaritan act and I thought that I would share it with you. I work in Saint John and we have dark coloured windows which we can see out of and people cannot see in (except at night).

We were just finishing up our lunch when we noticed a elderly man carrying at least 8 grocery bags full and walking towards town.

He would take 3 steps and then put all of the groceries down, take a break and then resume his walk.

One of the girls said I cannot stand watching him, I am going to seeif he needs a drive.

Sure enough out she goes and asked this man if he wanted a drive.

He said that he had a long way to go because he lived on the other side of the South End.

She told him that she would drive him and he could not of been any more pleased and Thankful.

He told her that he is a diabetic and he has to go to Sobey's to buy his food which most is specialty stuff.

My friend said that his bags were so thin that they were ready to bust anyways so she was glad that she decided to drive the stranger.

He said that it cost him so much for his food that he didn't have enough to get a Taxi so that is why he was walking.

She came back and said how good that it made her feel.

I know that most people would nevereven think of doing what she did and for safety reasons it might not of been the smartest but when you see the elderly struggling to survive in this world today, any act of kindness is appreciated by them.

Now I know why I might see a shopping cart way off of the beaten track once in a while.

ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 1/10016 14:10Federal FundingMr. S. Graham: My question this afternoon is for the Premier. Federal news reports have indicatedthat a considerable portion of Stephen Harper’s budget, which is being presented today in the Houseof Commons, will be focusing on the environment and on building on the legacy of former PrimeMinister Brian Mulroney. My question to the Premier this afternoon pertains to the fact that two ofthe largest environmental projects in this province which require funding from the federalgovernment are the restoration of the Petitcodiac River and the cleanup of Saint John Harbour.This Saturday, Prime Minister Harper was in New Brunswick, and we welcome the fact that he washere. At the same time, I would like to ask the Premier this afternoon: Can he tell the House whetherhe received confirmation from Prime Minister Harper that there would be funding in today’s budgetfor the cleanup of Saint John Harbour?Hon. Mr. Lord: I will certainly not give any details of the budget that will be tabled today, becauseI have no details of what will be tabled in the budget today. The new Minister of Finance will tablehis budget this afternoon. I wait with anticipation to hear what will be in that budget. Of one thingI am certain: It will be a great budget for Canadians.Mr. S. Graham: Clearly, after spending a number of hours with the Prime Minister on Saturdayevening, the Premier has a moral responsibility to give some degree of indication that there is goingto be federal funding available for these two important projects. My question to the Premier thisafternoon is this: On January 16, 2006, the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of theOpposition—Stephen Harper—stated: We’ll do it. We’ve made a clear commitment. It’s within ourenvironmental and infrastructure budget. That was the statement from the Prime Minister on January16, 2006, so the Prime Minister is aware of this issue.My question to you is this, Mr. Premier: Did you press the Prime Minister on Saturday night,stressing that this was an important issue for the people of New Brunswick, and asking whether itwould be included in today’s budget? That is what we want to know. Did you make the pitch, anddid you succeed in having it included?Hon. Mr. Lord: One thing we know is that the Leader of the Opposition was incapable of gettingany money from the previous federal government, for any project. As we know, the previous Liberalgovernment was incapable of pressing any issue with the previous federal Liberal government. Forinstance, did they get any money for the Saint John Harbour cleanup? No, they did not. Did they getany money for the Petitcodiac River cleanup? No, they did not. Did they get any money for theTrans-Canada Highway twinning between Moncton and Fredericton? No, they did not.ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 2/10One thing is certain: The Prime Minister was in New Brunswick again. I am glad he was back in ourprovince. When he was here on his first trip as Prime Minister, we made an announcement to fundthe first steps of the harbour cleanup, and I can assure you that our government is committed tofunding other steps down the road.Mr. S. Graham: The Premier is correct in his response this afternoon. Yes, we were incapable,because the Premier forgets a very important fact: We were not in government. If the Premier wantsto give us that opportunity, let him call an election this fall. The most this Premier can do is to blamethe opposition because he has failed to secure the necessary funding for harbour cleanup.017 14:15The option remains: Let the people of New Brunswick decide, on a fixed date this fall, who can bestgovern New Brunswick. My question to the Premier is very clear. If he is saying that he is waitingto see what is in this budget for harbour cleanup today, if he has failed to make the pitch and failedto succeed in landing the funding that is necessary, if he is saying that his budget includes funding,can he give us a commitment today of how much money is in this budget as the provincial portionfor harbour cleanup?Hon. Mr. Lord: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition should look back at the platforms of theLiberal Party in the past. The Liberals, including some who are sitting right in the front row of theLiberals today—maybe one or two actually sat in the front row here between 1995 and1999—campaigned on harbour cleanup back in 1995, and they delivered zero for Saint John from1995 to 1999 for harbour cleanup. Nothing would change this year if the Liberals were given a third,fourth, or fifth chance. They failed to deliver in the past, and they will fail to deliver if theopportunity ever presents itself again. We have delivered, and we will continue to deliver for SaintJohn and harbour cleanup. I am willing. I have met with the mayor and told him that our governmentis willing to sign an agreement with the city of Saint John, committing the government of NewBrunswick to $20 million over the next decade for harbour cleanup.Mr. S. Graham: As we continue to allow 16 million L of raw sewage each day to flow into theharbour, $20 million on an $88-million project over the next 10 years is unacceptable.EnvironmentSince the Premier was not able to convince his federal counterpart in Ottawa that this project is apriority for our province and he has not indicated that it will be included in today’s budget, my nextquestion pertains to the restoration of the Petitcodiac River. When Prime Minister Harper was in theDelta Hotel in Moncton on Saturday evening, all he had to do was look out the window and see theimportance of bringing forward a concrete plan for the restoration of the Petitcodiac River. Myquestion to the Premier is this: Has your government submitted a proposal to the federal governmentORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 3/10pertaining to the restoration of the Petitcodiac River and the cleanup of the Saint John harbour?What actual documentation have you submitted to request federal funding?Hon. Mr. Lord: The provincial government and I, in meetings with the Prime Minister, have raisedthe issue of harbour cleanup, and I have raised the issue of the Petitcodiac River. In fact, we havebeen able to obtain some federal funding for the harbour cleanup. The Leader of the Opposition maysay that $20 million is not a lot of money. That is because the Leader of the Opposition likesspending other people’s money. That is because he is risky and reckless in his approach to publicpolicy. They like to say that $20 million is not a lot of money, but it is $20 million more than whatwas delivered by the Liberals when they had a chance to clean up the Saint John harbour. Theydelivered zero dollars for the people of Saint John, and now, $20 million is not enough. It is alwaysthat way with Liberals. It is never enough unless they get the money for themselves.Mr. S. Graham: May I remind the Premier this afternoon that it was the former Liberal governmentthat committed the necessary funding, approximately 41% of the federal funding necessary to bringthe project up to date, where it is today. The real question pertaining to the Premier this afternoonis the fact that he has not been able to get federal funding for harbour cleanup. He has not been ableto get the federal funding for the restoration of the Petitcodiac River, and he has the audacity tostand up here today and say that $20 million is what is going to be put in place over a 10-yearperiod. We are saying that we have a responsibility to the environment to make the necessaryinvestments.You callously said that we do not respect the taxpayers’ money. Well, it is you, Mr. Premier, whois spending the taxpayers’ money, trying to influence votes and buy votes with people on this sideof the House. We very clearly welcome an election. The people of New Brunswick will decide whoshould govern the province. Make no mistake about it: Environment will be a key issue.018 14:20Hon. Mr. Lord: I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to throw out accusations in thisHouse, and I expect that will continue for quite some time. We are here to deal with the issues ofimportance to the people of New Brunswick. I welcome the fact that there is a new federalgovernment in Ottawa. With this new government, we have replaced a relationship of talk down,confrontation that we were faced with before, with one of a new partnership in progress. Maybe theLeader of the Opposition was not around on the day the Prime Minister came here. We did announcefunding for Saint John Harbour cleanup. For the first time, the three levels of government werestanding on the same stage saying yes to harbour cleanup.We have also been able to obtain three-way funding of $13 million for a stadium in Moncton. Wehave also been able to obtain a $400-million highway agreement for the national highway systemin New Brunswick. That is real commitment.ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 4/10Mr. S. Graham: The devil will be in the details. Today, New Brunswickers will determine if thisPremier was successful in securing the necessary funding under this new federal budget. Thequestion the Premier will have to answer is: Will there be money set aside today in the federalbudget for harbour cleanup? He has not answered that question. Will there be money set aside forthe restoration of the Petitcodiac River? In fact, the member for Moncton North had said three yearsago that a trust fund should be established, so that the province would be able to move quickly whenthe federal government came to the table. We will wait to see about that.EmploymentMy last question is, While Prime Minister Harper was in New Brunswick on Saturday, did he giveany clear commitment as to what new public service jobs will be put in the Miramichi to replace the200 jobs that will be eliminated in that city? The question I am asking today is: If the Premier couldnot get a clear commitment on the two environmental issues, what clear commitment did he get forthe 200 well-paying jobs in the Miramichi and the people who depend on them for their livelihood?Hon. Mr. Lord: I want to correct the Leader of the Opposition, who is wrong again. He is wrongwhen he states that the federal government did not make a commitment to harbour cleanup. It has,and the Prime Minister announced that commitment himself. There is provincial, federal, andmunicipal money going toward harbour cleanup, and the funding is in place. We have also made acommitment for a longer term arrangement which would include the city of Saint John. We wantthe federal government to be onboard for that as well.I have raised the issue of the long-gun registry with the Prime Minister. Unlike the opposition, wehave a clear position on the long-gun registry. We are opposed to the gun registry program that wasput in place by the federal Liberals. It wasted so much money that they could have cleaned up theharbour and the Petitcodiac River, along with completing the highway between Moncton andFredericton, and still have lots of money left over.Our position is clear. We also want the federal government to maintain jobs in Miramichi. Thosejobs are not yet eliminated because a decision has not been made by the federal government. Thelegislation has not been changed. Our position is crystal clear: Let’s get rid of the long-gun registryand let’s keep jobs in New Brunswick.Home Heating Oil Benefit ProgramMr. Doherty: We have recently introduced An Act to Amend the New Brunswick Income Tax Act,whereby we are seeking to extend the deadline for the home heating rebate for customers heatingwith heating fuel. This program was announced during the by-election in Saint John in November2005. Unfortunately, the introduction of Bill 57 was not met with as much enthusiasm as we hadotherwise expected. However, just this morning, we heard on the CBC that consideration was nowbeing given to the extension of this program.ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 5/10My question to the Minister of Finance is quite simple: Why would he wait until the deadline haspassed, and after we introduced Bill 57, before he started considering our idea? It is important to beproactive and timely when it comes to the subsidization of our low- and fixed-income families. Whydid he wait?L’hon. M. Volpé : Premièrement, une fois de plus, on a un député qui est mal et dans l’erreur.L’engagement n’a pas été pris durant les élections en 2005 mais au mois d’août. Une fois on doitcorriger les parlementaires de l’opposition.019 14:25De ce côté de la Chambre, l’engagement du gouvernement a été de donner un rabais aux gens quiutilisaient du mazout. Des termes ont été établis, et des gens ont fait une demande. De ce côté de laChambre, contrairement aux Libéraux qui étaient au pouvoir il y a quelques années, nous avonsrespecté notre engagement. Je me rappelle très bien que, lorsque j’étais à l’opposition, legouvernement en place avait pris un engagement pour réduire l’impôt sur le revenu des particuliersau cours de l’élection de 1995. Il n’a jamais respecté cet engagement. De ce côté de la Chambre,nous avons pris un engagement et nous l’avons respecté. Ce que nous avons dit, c’est que nousétions prêts à considérer à allonger la période jusqu’à la fin juin. De ce côté de la Chambre, nousavons respecté l’engagement qui était d’aller jusqu’à la fin du mois d’avril.Mr. Doherty: Do I understand from the response that the minister is considering extending theprogram until July 1?L’hon. M. Volpé : D’après ce que je comprends, il y a un projet de loi qui sera présenté parl’opposition, et nous allons avoir la chance de le débattre dans quelques minutes probablement.Donc, nous aurons la chance de donner des détails. Étant donné que l’opposition nous donne un peula chance de revoir les engagements du gouvernement précédent — et nous avons parlé ce matin del’enseignement supérieur —, je demanderais à tous les parlementaires du côté de l’opposition deconseiller leur chef lorsqu’il prend des engagements. En effet, de 1995 à 1997, un engagement dela part du gouvernement libéral avait été fait d’aider les collèges communautaires, mais il a réduitde 2,2 % les fonds destinés aux collèges communautaires. Une fois de plus, l’ancien gouvernementlibéral a renié ses promesses. Que le député de Saint John Harbour vienne nous donner des conseilscomment respecter nos engagements… Eh bien, nous avons respecté notre engagement de l’automnedernier qui indiquait jusqu’au 31 avril. Cet après-midi durant le débat, nous allons prendre enconsidération, si nous allons allonger la période.Mr. Doherty: We look forward to the debate. It is also important that this program be effectivelyutilized. According to the Department of Finance, there has been only about 50% participation. Thisis barely a passing grade. In addition to extending this program, Bill 57 also looks at extending thehome heating rebate to other sources of fuel. The Department of Finance claims that the extensionof this program is under consideration. Are we to assume that with the extension of this program toORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 6/10July 2006, the Minister of Finance is also considering our idea, per Bill 57, to open discussions onalternate forms of heating? As you know, three-quarters of New Brunswickers heat their homes withbaseboard electrical heating. Once again, I encourage this government and the Premier to take ourideas, if it means that New Brunswickers, especially those who are living in poverty and on fixedincomes, are positively affected.L’hon. M. Volpé : Ce que l’on voit une fois de plus, c’est un groupe de l’opposition en manqued’idées, et ce, à un tel point, que ces gens prennent nos idées et essaient de se ramasser du mérite.Je viens d’entendre le député d’en face nous dire que l’idée du rabais sur le mazout venait de leurcôté. Une fois de plus, c’est faux. Cela a été annoncé par le présent gouvernement, et nous avonsrespecté notre engagement. Justement, en fin de semaine, j’ai vu que le chef de l’opposition arencontré un groupe de personnes âgées. Là, il dit aux personnes âgées : Si nous sommes élus, onva vous laisser vos maisons et on va réduire les taux par mois. Cela a été annoncé par notregouvernement. C’est une honte. Il y a un groupe de gens à l’opposition qui sont en manque d’idées.Il y a un vide intellectuel. Les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick commencent à se rendre compte ce qu’ily a de l’autre côté de la Chambre : un vide intellectuel et un manque flagrant d’idées.GamblingMr. Murphy: Gambling in New Brunswick has become very problematic. We have many casinosunder a number of roofs, with bars assembling themselves with different licenses. We have a TexasHold’em problem. We have the crack cocaine of VLTs out there that takes large bills. We have adying horse racing industry. We have Internet gambling. All these things have come about to a pointof crisis.020 14:30I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I know that gambling is something that thegovernment is very worried about, but it is also something that it has to have a deadline on. It is avery simple question. Will the Minister of Finance advise this House as to whether the gamblingstrategy study that has been undertaken for so very long will be released by June 1 of this year?L’hon. M. Volpé : La réponse sera donnée lorsque le travail sera terminé. L’engagement dugouvernement actuel est de prendre une approche prudente et de vérifier les cas. À plusieursreprises, nous avons apporté de l’information que nous avons évaluée. Il y a un autre document detravail auquel nous sommes en train de travailler et que nous apporterons au comité des prioritéspour évaluation. Il semble y avoir des endroits où nous pourrions bouger un peu plus rapidement.À d’autres endroits, il y a encore des questions à poser. Cependant, notre intention est de mettre enplace une politique du jeu au Nouveau-Brunswick qui aura un impact positif sur les gens duNouveau-Brunswick.ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 7/10Mr. Murphy: I have no doubts as to the good intentions of the minister or even the government inthis regard, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The difficulty here is that this hastaken so very long. While it takes that long, people are losing their lives in every fashion, andfamilies are suffering. Once again, I am urging the government to move ahead quickly on this. Withregard to the parameters of the study, will the minister confirm whether they have excluded privateinvestment and private enterprise in favour of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation being involved inthe entire strategy or whether it is a combination of both?L’hon. M. Volpé : Pour être bien clair, de ce côté-ci de la Chambre, nous pensons qu’une politiquedu jeu bien réglementée est la meilleure approche. Donc, nous continuerons à évaluer les différentesoptions. Je peux comprendre que c’est frustrant pour le député de Moncton-Nord, qui possède, luimême,des chevaux et qui voudrait que nous poussions le plus rapidement possible afin de pouvoirassurer la participation de ses chevaux sur une piste de course. Toutefois, de ce côté-ci de laChambre, nous prendrons le temps nécessaire de nous assurer que la politique que nous mettronsen place sera la meilleure pour les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick.Mr. Murphy: This morning, I was at the barn shoveling horse manure. I never get homesick whenI come up here, because I can smell the same thing when this government starts answeringquestions. My question to the Minister of Finance is this: Will he simply confirm to this House . . .(Interjection.)Mr. Murphy: Mr. Speaker, can I get the attention . . .Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I recognize the member for Moncton North. Please have a little respect.Mr. Murphy: Will the minister simply confirm to New Brunswick that the status quo with regardto the number of VLTs out there and in all these mini-casinos is simply unacceptable as it is now?L’hon. M. Volpé : Justement, nous voulons changer le statu quo. Ce ne sont pas seulement lescasinos situés dans des hippodromes que nous sommes en train d’évaluer. Nous regardons tout lecôté des tournois de poker, les bingos et tout ce qui touche au jeu au Nouveau-Brunswick et dansles secteurs où il y a vraiment des défis. Nous voulons nous assurer d’avoir vraiment la réponse quiconvient aux gens du Nouveau-Brunswick. Nous avons des dossiers dans les secteurs… Je vais vousdonner un exemple. Du côté des bingos au Nouveau-Brunswick, il y a des endroits où il n’y a pasassez de bénévoles pour s’occuper des bingos. Nous prenons le secteur privé. Cela a causé desproblèmes car les bénévoles n’ont pas reçu l’argent qu’ils devaient recevoir. Il y a des cas en courprésentement. Donc, il faut s’assurer d’avoir une politique de jeu qui protège les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick.ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 8/10J’entends le député de Moncton-Nord nous dire qu’il semblerait qu’il a brassé du fumier ce matinet je crois qu’il en brasse beaucoup plus de son côté de la Chambre. Pour lui, je pense que c’est unepratique. Ensuite, il vient continuer son travail à la Chambre.Conflict of InterestMr. Arseneault: My question this morning is for the Deputy Premier. Could the Deputy Premierplease state to the Legislature the relationship between the Deputy Premier and the companyGrama’s Bake Shop Ltd. on 767 Central Street, in Centreville, New Brunswick?Hon. D. Graham: I can assure the honourable member on the other side that I do have that companyin blind trust.Mr. Arseneault: The New Brunswick Business Corporations Act Form 24.2 filed in 2005 indicatesthat the Deputy Premier is one of two directors of Grama’s Bake Shop Ltd. in Centreville, NewBrunswick. If the company is held in blind trust, the Deputy Premier cannot be a director of thiscompany.021 14:35My second question to the Deputy Premier follows. Since 2003, the Deputy Premier billed over$2 300 in ministerial expense claims for goods and services obtained at Grama’s Bake Shop. TheMembers’ Conflict of Interest Act clearly states that no member of the executive council may engagein the management of a business carried on by a corporation, and that no member should be makingdecisions that result in personal benefit. The Deputy Premier’s business received over $2 300 inministerial expenses. Can the Deputy Premier tell us why he broke the law?Hon. D. Graham: I can inform all members of the House that the company is in blind trust. Icertainly do not do any day-to-day operations. I am a full-time MLA, and I certainly take my jobas minister very seriously. I do, on the odd occasion, on a Sunday, have a meal there.Mr. Arseneault: My final question for today is to the Deputy Premier. Given that he is the directorof a business, in contravention of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, and given that he isfunneling taxpayers’ dollars to his business through ministerial expense claims, which is also incontravention of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, has the Deputy Premier discussed thesematters with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner? Did he receive permission from thecommissioner to undertake these activities?Hon. D. Graham: I certainly meet with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner on a yearly basis, andI have done so since the Act was put together. The commissioner is certainly very well aware thatthe company is in blind trust. We do, actually, have a discussion every year about how the companyis operated, and about how successful it has been. I must remind the members that I started thatORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 9/10company in 1981. In September of this year it will be 25 years. I think that is pretty good—25 years,for a small business.RCMPMr. Allaby: My question is to the Minister of Public Safety. Is the minister aware that the RCMPhouse and office on Deer Island has been condemned?Hon. Mr. Steeves: That would be under the day-to-day operation, which is an RCMP matter. I leavethat entirely up to the RCMP, whether the house is condemned, or whether they have moved to newoffices, or whatever.Mr. Allaby: This is the minister who is responsible for public safety in New Brunswick. I shouldthink he would have an interest in the matter. Deer Island is isolated. Then the RCMP office andhouse are housed in the same building, and the building has been condemned, with the materialsmoved to St. George. The RCMP officer and her husband have to find another location in which toreside. This is an intolerable situation. This minister is responsible for public safety, and he isshuffling off his responsibilities to the RCMP. What is he going to do to ensure that the RCMP havethe resources to fix this problem?Hon. Mr. Steeves: I am so pleased that he has asked what we are going to do to make sure that theywill have the resources. I might add that when you were in government, you reduced the resourcesto the RCMP. I am pleased to say that since this government has taken office, we have improved theRCMP and their resources. I will tell you that it is a day-to-day operation. The RCMP will makethose decisions, and if they feel they want to put another office on that island, then they will do that.That is a day-to-day operation. I can assure the member—and he knows full well—that they did notmove because of a lack of resources. They moved because there was something wrong with thebuilding.Mr. Allaby: This is the whole point. We have a situation here. The minister, first of all, says thathe does not have anything to do with the day-to-day operations. Then, he comments on theresources, or lack thereof. Now, he says that they did not move for lack of resources, but becausethe building has been condemned. Where are the resources to fix the problem? You cannot talk outof both sides of your mouth. What is the minister going to do to ensure that the RCMP get thisproblem fixed?Hon. Mr. Steeves: First of all, I did not say . . . I said that they had the resources. We did improvethe resources. It was your government that took the resources away, many years ago.ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALESMay 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 10/10022 14:40I will tell you that we have put them back in, but it is a day-to-day operation. They did not movebecause of a lack of resources. They moved because the building was condemned. It is entirely upto the RCMP to do that and to make those decisions.Support OrdersMr. Lamrock: My question is, again, for the Minister of Justice. Last week, I raised an issue thathas been raised by family lawyers across this province about the fact that too many custodial parentsare not getting the help they and their kids need, because this government has unacceptably longwait times to get interim support orders in place. At the time, the Minister of Justice was not ableto tell me what his department is doing, other than to say that it is very, very concerned.I want to bring another suggestion forward. Some family lawyers have suggested changing the lawto allow for real costs against those who prolong the process, those parents who drag out the processto try to get out of paying. It would not cost the government any money, but it might be adisincentive to things that tie up the court system. Between this and masters, we have suggested twoideas that do not cost any money, but which might help parents and kids get the money they deserve.My question to the minister is this: If we pledge our support to help get it done, will we seelegislation before this legislative session ends?Hon. Mr. Fitch: I am very pleased to answer the question posed by the Justice Critic. When I tookover the portfolio, I met with a number of people who are involved in the family courts. I sat downand talked with Judge Tuck and talked at length about the conditions and the length of time peoplewaited to get into court. We know about the family court’s federal appointment, and we haveexchanged letters back and forth with the minister in Ottawa.Certainly, if opportunity allows when the House work finishes, if the critic wants to come with thisminister to Ottawa and pair with me, if the opposition wants to pair with us to do some of the workthat is for the betterment of the province, I would be more than happy to consider some of thesuggestions that have been brought forward. Our aims are the same in making sure that the publicinterest is promoted here in areas that are of mutual concern for all New Brunswickers.